Act Party Fails to Increase Off-License Purchase Age

Submitted by Stephen Berry on Thu, 2012-08-30 09:28

There is good reason for the advocates of individual liberty to be rejoicing tonight, as the alcohol purchase age stays at 18 for both on and off license purchases. I was considerably nervous bout the prospects of keeping the status quo as public opinion and the media are clearly overwhelmingly in favour of an increase back to 20. So as well as rejoicing in the vote I am also relieved.

John Banks, Leader of the Act Party, has failed in his attempt to reduce individual freedom by voting to increase the off-license alcohol purchase age. Yes, the sole MP of a party which claims to stand for liberalism and freedom cast a vote in favour of reducing individual freedom. Then, when that vote failed, he voted to keep the purchase age 18. What choice did he have? His party’s youth wing had threatened to walk, but Banks doesn’t believe in individual liberty. He even had the cheek to vote for as much of a decrease in freedom as he thought he could get away with. So the Act membership must be pissed right?

Actually no. Right now, many of them are patting themselves on the back because Act helped to achieve keeping the purchase age 18. What the fuck? The age stayed at 18 despite the Act party, not because of it. What would they be saying right now if the split purchase age, which their leader actually preferred was passed? I don’t know to be honest, because it appears that many of them will grasp onto whatever pitiful excuse they can to stick with the sinking ship! The leader of the Act party voted to increase the off-license alcohol purchase age and those in Act who threatened to walk are now sticking by him because he failed and then voted to keep the age 18.

Now I’ve had my time as a quantum leap libertarian advocating a jump to minarchy within 10 years. It was incredibly unsuccessful. I accept being pragmatic and principled as seeking to achieve smaller government in bite size chunks. A lot of people in Act support the same approach but they delude themselves that this is what they are getting with a Banks-led Act party. They are not. All the Act party has achieved is the establishment of charter schools, which is the spending of taxpayer dollars on something other than state schools, as well as a meaningless pledge to cap Government spending increases with enough provisos to be worthless. The recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry is not an Act initiative and their leader took a lot of threats and convincing not to vote 20/20 on the alcohol purchase age. Nothing has even been achieved in this vote – it is just one of those rare occasions where the state hasn’t got larger.

The real option for the liberals in Act to achieve something in 2014 is to jump ship now, while there is still time to organise a liberal alternative prior to the 2014 election. When you’re threatening and blackmailing your leader to stop him from increasing state control over the lives of individuals, you’re in the wrong political party. When you consider your party leader’s failed vote to decrease liberty an achievement, you’re deluded. If the Act liberals don’t jump ship now, they’ll be dragged into the 2014 election swallowing their own bile, campaigning to elect a man who despises what they value in the hope a John Key led Government will chuck them a couple of crumbs.

Courage, clarity and conviction is the answer for true liberals. A new political party that takes a pragmatic approach to advocate for more freedom and less government is the right path. The opportunity to be part of this new party is just weeks away…

"The point is, that compulsion, per se, is not any reason to deny the legitimacy of a state act. It's the basis for the compulsion that matters. To suggest there are no reasons for compulsion per se, is to advocate anarchy."

Murder, rape, theft. The state compels individuals to answer for those types of crimes upon the presentation of reasonable evidence.

Are you suggesting no compulsion is proper if an individual is charged with such crimes? Arrest not proper? Custody not proper? Incarceration not proper if found guilty?

"Ross seems to think that socialism is fine and dandy if you do it for the right reason."

What an outrageous supposition. How wholly bereft you are if you conflate theft and murder by the state with the same by one individual against another.

If those with libertarian spirit did join National they would shape the party in the same way the Tea Party shaped the Republicans and unions the Labour Party here.

There would be no need to constrain or self-censure thinking or thought, National is unlikely to expel people for being too right-wing. I expect they are desperate for live bodies.

If a fringe group espouses libertarian thought it is too hard for most people to absorb, but if the same thing is said by what they perceive to be a mainstream party the ideology is listened to and accepted much easier.

Libertarians should be a faction of National, with members in parliament and a seat at the table. Leave the middle ground to Peter Dunne.

But there are to *compel* those accused of rape, upon reasonable evidence, to answer.

The point is, that compulsion, per se, is not any reason to deny the legitimacy of a state act. It's the basis for the compulsion that matters. To suggest there are no reasons for compulsion per se, is to advocate anarchy.

compulsion is the difference between them, if you take compulsion out of rape it is not rape, it is something else.

Compulsion is the bedrock of many form of economics, not merely socialism, and yes, I am willing to trade some liberty for performance, just a lot less than most people but a little more than folks here.

It always was a puzzle to me. How come that in many countries the voting age is 18, but drinking age is 21? How it makes sense that people can choose a government before they can choose to drink? Eventually I understood the reason beyond this legislation. It gives to the people at least 3 years of the sober look on their governments.

I support libertarian ideas not merely because of the lack of compulsion but also because it is better economically. I am wiling to trade some economic non-performance for liberty but there is a limit. At some point I would sacrifice liberty for economic results.

I agree with you here, that Douglas etc concluded that the best way to help the poor and achieve "social justice" (I never really understood what that means) was by undoing the unnecessary infrastructure of the state.

This is a good thing though. If the poor could be made to understand that a social welfare state actually reduces their real income and damns their children to poverty then the road to a free society would be easier.

Socialism is wrong not merely for its reliance on compulsion but also for its perverse economic outcomes.

"I am unsure if Douglas, Prebble etc were economic liberals until 1984. I get the impression that reality forced it on them and then they became believers."

...they were never economic liberals. They were early converts to the Third Way.

They still believed in the holy leftist agenda of social justice, but they found a new path to it.

I'll be the first to applaud the reforms of the 80s, because they breathed life back into our economy and saved us from banana republic status. But is was liberalism in the pursuit of the old goal. It was the idea that if you treat the slaves nicely, they will work harder.

Navigation

More SOLO Store

Syndicate

The opinions expressed here are the unmoderated views of the contributors who express them.They do not necessarily reflect the views of other contributors, or of SOLO, and do not necessarily align with Objectivism.